Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

to be similar to 'Glucon-D' by virtue of its earlier stand that 'Gluco' is common to trade. In this regard he placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in SK Sachdeva v. Shri of Educare Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 473, relevant portion is reproduced as under:

rt "11. The trademark in issue in the said application was 'SHRI RAM EDUCARE'. Perusal of the objections raised by the Trademark Registry shows that the Trademark Registry was, prima facie, of the view that the trademark sought to be registered was devoid of any distinctive character and similar trademarks were already on record of the register for same or similar goods or services. The Class in issue was Class 41 dealing with education.
.
"APPLICABILITY OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
30. We shall now proceed to apply the legal principles governing trademark infringement and passing off to the facts of the present case, in order to determine whether the respondent's mark is deceptively similar to the appellants' registered trademarks.
(A) SIMILARITY AND DISTINCTIVENESS: NAME, COLOUR of SCHEME, AND TRADE DRESS
31. Trademark protection - whether based on name, colour combination, trade dress, or structural features - centres on a mark's ability to distinguish the commercial origin of goods or rt services in the minds of consumers. The likelihood of confusion remains the cornerstone of both infringement and passing off actions.

31.1. A registered trademark is infringed when a person, in the course of trade, uses a mark that is identical or deceptively similar to a registered trademark in relation to similar goods or services. Section 2(1)(h) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 defines 'deceptively similar' to mean 'a mark shall be deemed to be deceptively similar to another mark if it so nearly resembles that other mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion'. 31.2. Whether a trade mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion is a question of fact. Courts have consistently held that the broad and essential features of the rival marks must be considered. The assessment focuses on visual appearance, phonetic similarity, the nature of the goods, the class of purchasers, and the manner of sale. 31.3. As held in Parker - Knoll Ltd v. Knoll International Ltd.23, proof of an intention to deceive is not required; a likelihood of confusion is sufficient to establish infringement or passing off. The evaluation must be made from the standpoint of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, emphasizing the overall commercial impression rather than engaging in a minute or mechanical comparison. 31.4. The strength of a trademark lies in its inherent distinctiveness or the distinctiveness acquired through use. Invented or coined marks - such as Kodak or Solio - are inherently distinctive and command the highest degree of protection. These marks immediately signify the commercial origin of the goods or services. In contrast, descriptive marks

32.4. In the present case, the appellants' attempt to isolate the word 'PRIDE' as the basis of comparison is legally untenable. Trademark similarity must be assessed by considering the mark as a whole, and not by extracting a single component for comparison. When viewed in their entirety, the appellants' marks - 'BLENDERS PRIDE', 'IMPERIAL BLUE', and 'SEAGRAM'S' - are structurally, phonetically, and visually distinct from the respondent's mark 'LONDON PRIDE'. The mere presence of the common word 'PRIDE' which is a generic and laudatory term, does not render the competing marks deceptively similar in the absence of an overall resemblance. Thus, under the anti-dissection rule, no case for infringement or passing off is made out.